Light Bulb Ban
Quote: weaselmanor mercury thermometers in the stores,
Yet we CAN buy and will be forced to buy mercury filled light 'bulbs'. Does that make any kind of sense to anybody? If you break one, you almost need to call 911 so they can send a HAZMAT team to clean it up. Here is just part of what you have to do:
# Do not use a vacuum cleaner to clean up the breakage. This will spread the mercury vapor and dust throughout the area and could potentially contaminate the vacuum.
# Keep people and pets away from the breakage area until the cleanup is complete.
# Ventilate the area by opening windows, and leave the area for 15 minutes before returning to begin the cleanup. Mercury vapor levels will be lower by then.
# For maximum protection and if you have them, wear rubber gloves to protect your hands from the sharp glass.
# Carefully remove the larger pieces and place them in a secure closed container, preferably a glass container with a metal screw top lid and seal like a canning jar.1 A glass jar with a good seal works best to contain any mercury vapors inside.2
# Next, begin collecting the smaller pieces and dust. You can use two stiff pieces of paper such as index cards or playing cards to scoop up pieces.
# Pat the area with the sticky side of duct tape, packing tape or masking tape to pick up fine particles. Wipe the area with a wet wipe or damp paper towel to pick up even finer particles.
# Put all waste and materials into the glass container, including all material used in the cleanup that may have been contaminated with mercury. Label the container as “Universal Waste - broken lamp.”
# Remove the container with the breakage and cleanup materials from your home. This is particularly important if you do not have a glass container.
It goes on and on! This is insanity, are people who can't read going to do this? Is ANYBODY? And get this part:
"Consumers may also consider avoiding CFL usage in bedrooms or carpeted areas frequented by infants, small children, pregnant women or the elderly.."
HUH? Thats all we're going to have, you dolts. What do suggest, kerosene lamps?
Quote: mrjjjWrong answer coolbreeze. Its the truth.
Government, government......give me, give me !!!! (Cradle to grave......ROFL)
Ken
Regardless of what stupid names you call me or anyone else, what you said is a ridiculous, unwarranted, and completely false speculation. At best, it's hyperbole. At worst, it's driveling nonsense.
Gonna have to turn you back off now. Nothing has changed, unfortunately.
Quote: weaselmanYou can't buy a car without safety belts
Cars are an interesting discussion all in themselves as so many things have been done since Henry Ford's heyday. I don't know how many things were government bans versus the car company taking actions.
I looked up rumble seats once (i forget why). But one reason they went out of fashion apparently is in an accident the passengers in them often were decapitated.
Quote: Wavy70You may want to read over W Bush's Homeland Security Act. If you want to accuse anyone of asserting more control you may want to lump the conservatives in there too.
We dont agree, not a big deal.
Ken
Quote: EvenBobYet we CAN buy and will be forced to buy mercury filled light 'bulbs'. Does that make any kind of sense to anybody?
You can't use lead-based paint, but there is still lead in car batteries. So what?
My point about mercury thermometers was that they were unnecessary. They may be (slightly) harmful, and do not offer any benefit whatsoever over the other alternative, thus, it simply doesn't make sense to use them any longer.
The analogy with the incandescent light bulbs was that they are wasteful, and less economical, than their alternative, that provides the same benefits, thus it makes no sense to insist on using them either (other than "on principle", of course).
Quote:
If you break one, you almost need to call 911 so they can send a HAZMAT team to clean it up. Here is just part of what you have to do:
# Do not use a vacuum cleaner to clean up the breakage. This will spread the mercury vapor and dust throughout the area and could potentially contaminate the vacuum.
# Keep people and pets away from the breakage area until the cleanup is complete.
# Ventilate the area by opening windows, and leave the area for 15 minutes before returning to begin the cleanup. Mercury vapor levels will be lower by then.
# For maximum protection and if you have them, wear rubber gloves to protect your hands from the sharp glass.
# Carefully remove the larger pieces and place them in a secure closed container, preferably a glass container with a metal screw top lid and seal like a canning jar.1 A glass jar with a good seal works best to contain any mercury vapors inside.2
# Next, begin collecting the smaller pieces and dust. You can use two stiff pieces of paper such as index cards or playing cards to scoop up pieces.
# Pat the area with the sticky side of duct tape, packing tape or masking tape to pick up fine particles. Wipe the area with a wet wipe or damp paper towel to pick up even finer particles.
# Put all waste and materials into the glass container, including all material used in the cleanup that may have been contaminated with mercury. Label the container as “Universal Waste - broken lamp.”
# Remove the container with the breakage and cleanup materials from your home. This is particularly important if you do not have a glass container.
It goes on and on! This is insanity, are people who can't read going to do this? Is ANYBODY?
Basically, it says, that you should put on rubber gloves pick up the spillage, put it into a glass container, take it outside, and then ventilate the room. Insanity? Hardly.
The insanity is in how much the danger is being exaggerated. The amount of mercury is the bulb is so tiny, that you need to break thousands of them in your home at once to be at any real risk (unless you want to eat the mercury after you picked it up - that could make it worse). When I was growing up we loved to break the thermometers for fun, and then play with the little shiny liquid balls for hours. Nobody ever got sick from that ...
Releasing 4 mg of mercury vapor into a closed room is harmful. The OSHA reference exposure is supposed to be 0.05mg/cubic meter over an 8 hour day. A typical 10 x 10 x 8 room is 22.6 cubic meters and therefore the initial concentration would be about .17mg/cubic meter, about 3.4 x the OSHA reference. This concentration would dissipate through air exchange.
So, if you happen to break a CFL (and in the 10 years I've been using them, I haven't broken 1), open a window, walk away for a few minutes, and then, carefully, clean up the mess.
Quote: mrjjjWe dont agree, not a big deal.
Ken
No need to agree, its a fact that the HLSA enacted some of the most sweeping laws in regards to privacy and personal freedom.
I also am not a believer in helmets for cycle riders. It should be their own CHOICE.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjLiberals love their BIG government control and BIG spending, no thanks and then they think they are tricky......Well, what about speed limits, is that government control as well? lol, whatever.
I also am not a believer in helmets for cycle riders. It should be their own CHOICE.
Ken
MRJJJ you seem to forget that this law about CFL bulbs was from a conservative president. It was cheaper than fixing the outdated power system.
BTW the 2 presidents who expanded government the most in the last 50 years were Ron Reagan and George W Bush. Sorry if this doesn't fit wiht what you hear on the radio.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjI also am not a believer in helmets for cycle riders. It should be their own CHOICE.
Not while I'm being taxed to pay for your head trauma treatment. Do you understand what an externality is? Or that mitigating externalities is a primary economic reason for government to exist at all?
As you are so fond of saying, you can't have it both ways. If you reap the benefits of government, you should expect to pay the price. The price of government is less freedom (in the form of laws, regulations and taxes), but the benefits are a more productive and secure society with a higher standard of living. You seem to have an idealized sense of small-government and personal liberty, but history has shown that the less a government takes care of its people, the more likely it is to be overthrown. If you really want no government, no taxes, and maximal freedoms, you'll just have to leave.
p.s. Your taxes paid for the development of the technology which enabled this message.
-- The mercury created by the CFL is more than offset by the mercury produced by the coal fired plants that produced the electricity.
-- You save alot of money by switching to CFLs.
-- CFLs now come in standard A19 formats so that they can go in lamps with shades on them.
At the same time the hue that is released from some of the lights is lousy. On average, only 16 percent of your home electricity usage is from light bulbs. So I think that the government forcing you to use CFLs is a copout, at best. Yes, it's the easiest ROI to attain and is win/win. But if the government is going to force you to save energy with CFLs, it should also force you to by energy efficient furnaces (no more electric furnaces), refridgerators, stoves, etc.
CFLs will be replaced by LEDs eventually anyway.
Quote: MathExtremistNot while I'm being taxed to pay for your head trauma treatment. Do you understand what an externality is? Or that mitigating externalities is a primary economic reason for government to exist at all?
As you are so fond of saying, you can't have it both ways. If you reap the benefits of government, you should expect to pay the price. The price of government is less freedom (in the form of laws, regulations and taxes), but the benefits are a more productive and secure society with a higher standard of living. You seem to have an idealized sense of small-government and personal liberty, but history has shown that the less a government takes care of its people, the more likely it is to be overthrown. If you really want no government, no taxes, and maximal freedoms, you'll just have to leave.
p.s. Your taxes paid for the development of the technology which enabled this message.
I was 'waiting' for that. You know when a person posts something KNOWING what the response will be, its called a set-up (which I'm the master at). Let me ask this question coolbreeze. There are some states that have proposed.....what if the cycle rider pays a certain type of insurance (with proof of course) that PAYS (if an accident occurs) both for himself and/or another motorist and the rider would NOT have to wear a helmet. For this reward (cough) from big brother, he would pay a bit higher for the insurance. Now lets see who is consistent. Would you STILL INSIST the cycle rider wear a helmet?
Lets be honest, I believe very FEW people when they say....its because of accidents etc. The REAL issue is that some (not all) liberals love the control factor.
Changing the subject a bit....a buddy of mine bought a small house. He was not going to rent it out, it was for himself. Anyways, the second floor porch did not have 'proper' beams. Its a small porch keep in mind, maybe 4 people can fit on it. So, big brother boarded the porch door UNTIL he spent the money to put in some support beams. My point? Its his FUCKIN HOUSE!!!! Before you try and 'get me' (cough), you can keep the speach regarding, the bank really owns it blah blah blah. He paid cash, its clear and all paid.
Ken
High speed rail etc. (ROFL)
No thanks.
Ken
Quote: avargovI find it odd that Mrjjj seems to do most of his posting when JerryLogan is banned.....but of course he is the master of the set-up.
I figure I was being had when he talked about his buddy buying a dilapidated house and the Big Brother building inspector told him it was unsafe. that made me chuckle
Quote: avargovI find it odd that Mrjjj seems to do most of his posting when JerryLogan is banned.....but of course he is the master of the set-up.
Dont know who he is or why he was banned or when he'll be back. So What?
Ken
Quote: mrjjjI was 'waiting' for that. You know when a person posts something KNOWING what the response will be, its called a set-up (which I'm the master at). Let me ask this question coolbreeze. There are some states that have proposed.....what if the cycle rider pays a certain type of insurance (with proof of course) that PAYS (if an accident occurs) both for himself and/or another motorist and the rider would NOT have to wear a helmet. For this reward (cough) from big brother, he would pay a bit higher for the insurance. Now lets see who is consistent. Would you STILL INSIST the cycle rider wear a helmet?
If there is no cost to society for your helmetless rider, I don't have a problem with it one bit. Did you think otherwise?
And I thought MKL was "coolbreeze". I request a different semi-disparaging moniker.
Quote:Lets be honest, I believe very FEW people when they say....its because of accidents etc. The REAL issue is that some (not all) liberals love the control factor.
Sure, keep telling yourself that. And then look in the mirror when you pretend to be tolerant of those with different political beliefs, and ask who's trying to control whom? Here's a news flash - when a government of the people and by the people votes to restrict freedoms in favor of higher societal benefit, you don't just get to say "screw it, I'm right and y'all are wrong." If you don't like it, leave. The scary liberals haven't taken that freedom from you.
Quote:Changing the subject a bit....a buddy of mine bought a small house. He was not going to rent it out, it was for himself. Anyways, the second floor porch did not have 'proper' beams. Its a small porch keep in mind, maybe 4 people can fit on it. So, big brother boarded the porch door UNTIL he spent the money to put in some support beams. My point? Its his FUCKIN HOUSE!!!! Before you try and 'get me' (cough), you can keep the speach regarding, the bank really owns it blah blah blah. He paid cash, its clear and all paid.
So you don't believe in building codes either? Compare and contrast: Haiti after 7.0 earthquake (Leogane, 2010, 230,000 dead) vs. Northern California after 6.9 earthquake (Loma Prieta, 1989, 63 dead). Do you actually not see the bigger picture? You don't live in a bubble, Ken, and your anarchist political views are neither relevant nor practical for a civilized society.
Ken
Quote: MathExtremistIf there is no cost to society for your helmetless rider, I don't have a problem with it one bit. Did you think otherwise?
The whole "cost to society" argument is pretty dangerous, and probably shouldn't be pursued, because the same argument can be used as follows ...
* Since Society pays for emergency room visits for poor people due to heart attacks caused by high salt content foods, we should ban all high salt content foods.
* Since Society pays for emergency room visits for poor people, we should ban emergency room use for poor people.
* Since Society pays for emergency room visits for poor people due to car accident, poor people's use of cars should be prohibited.
* Since Society pays for emergency room visits for poor people due to injuries suffered in athletic competitions, we should ban all athletic competitions.
These are meant to be reductio ad absurdum, but the concept is valid. Society will always have a cost, and society will always have idiots, and sometimes, the cost to Society caused by idiots has to be picked up by Society. That's just life.
If you want to make helmet use mandatory, that's fine, just don't attribut it to some nebulous "cost to Society" BS.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerThe whole "cost to society" argument is pretty dangerous, and probably shouldn't be pursued, because the same argument can be used as follows ...
* Since Society pays for emergency room visits for poor people due to heart attacks caused by high salt content foods, we should ban all high salt content foods.
* Since Society pays for emergency room visits for poor people, we should ban emergency room use for poor people.
* Since Society pays for emergency room visits for poor people due to car accident, poor people's use of cars should be prohibited.
* Since Society pays for emergency room visits for poor people due to injuries suffered in athletic competitions, we should ban all athletic competitions.
These are meant to be reductio ad absurdum, but the concept is valid. Society will always have a cost, and society will always have idiots, and sometimes, the cost to Society caused by idiots has to be picked up by Society. That's just life.
If you want to make helmet use mandatory, that's fine, just don't attribut it to some nebulous "cost to Society" BS.
BINGO BANGO!!! That list could be much longer BTW.
Ken
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerThe whole "cost to society" argument is pretty dangerous, and probably shouldn't be pursued, because the same argument can be used as follows ...
* Since Society pays for emergency room visits for poor people due to heart attacks caused by high salt content foods, we should ban all high salt content foods.
* Since Society pays for emergency room visits for poor people, we should ban emergency room use for poor people.
* Since Society pays for emergency room visits for poor people due to car accident, poor people's use of cars should be prohibited.
* Since Society pays for emergency room visits for poor people due to injuries suffered in athletic competitions, we should ban all athletic competitions.
These are meant to be reductio ad absurdum, but the concept is valid. Society will always have a cost, and society will always have idiots, and sometimes, the cost to Society caused by idiots has to be picked up by Society. That's just life.
If you want to make helmet use mandatory, that's fine, just don't attribut it to some nebulous "cost to Society" BS.
I disagree that the concept is valid because your logic is incomplete. The reductio, continued further, would simply conclude that all the costs you're mentioning are related to emergency rooms and poor people so we should ban both poor people and emergency rooms.
The costs or benefits to society should not be measured in purely economic terms (otherwise, whither art?) but even on an economic scale, the productivity cost to society for banning cars would vastly outweigh the cost of paying for emergency room visits due to car accidents. Everything has a cost, even nothing (measured in lost opportunity). It's the job of a well-managed society to minimize those costs relative to benefits. But a well-managed society is cognizant of ever-shifting costs and benefits, and does not cleave to an objective and unthinking standard such as maximal personal freedom at the expense of all else. Such is the thinking of zealots and fundamentalists, and look how well those societies are faring.
Quote: MathExtremist
And I thought MKL was "coolbreeze". I request a different semi-disparaging moniker.
Perhaps you can be "semi coolbreeze"
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerThe whole "cost to society" argument is pretty dangerous, and probably shouldn't be pursued, because the same argument can be used as follows ...
I think, the problem is that you are incorrectly reversing the implication. What ME said was that he did not have a problem if something that did NOT have a cost to society was not banned. This does not imply that everything that does have a cost should be banned.
Quote: Wavy70BTW the 2 presidents who expanded government the most in the last 50 years were Ron Reagan and George W Bush. Sorry if this doesn't fit wiht what you hear on the radio.
Nixon far outstripped both of your examples, starting with likes of the E.P.A. and wage and price controls.
Quote: FaceAye, I've also broken quite a few of them pesky buggers, usually while changing them, and fell under a rain of laser thin shards and some weird white powder. I've also found it entertaining beyond mention to wack your best friend across the back with them, as that powder is impossible to remove by merely brushing it off. While that may show a lack of intelligence, said lack was there before any contaminants could have possibly been inhaled, and none of us have thus far been plagued by any illnessess as a result.
Used to have to change dozens at a time and throw them in the dumpster. It was always a choice to either throw them one by one like a spear or gently slide them in then hit the "compact" button and listen to the explosions. And to think back then we thought the world was too cautious about everything.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerThe whole "cost to society" argument is pretty dangerous, and probably shouldn't be pursued, because the same argument can be used as follows ...
to some nebulous "cost to Society" BS.
The term "cost to society" gets misused and abused. What should really be curtailed is the practice of imposing negative externalities on others. Of course, a "cost to society" IS a negative externality, but because the cost in that case is diffused, we tend to discount it. That's why you label it "nebulous", but it is in fact, very real.
If I play my trumpet at 7 AM Sunday, I impose a negative externality on my neighbors. That impact is easily quantifiable, because I only have so many neighbors within earshot. If I go motorcycle riding without my helmet, the negative externality of that action is harder to quantify, because it affects all of society. If I need medical care because I didn't wear a helmet, and get into an accident, I am now burdening society with the cost of my care. This is true even if I'm insured, even if I pay all my bills out of pocket, and even if I die ten minutes after being wheeled into the emergency room. I used finite and limited societal resources, as a direct consequence of my decision not to wear a helmet.
Also, it's important to note that I didn't impose that negative externality when I got into the accident--I imposed it when I decided to ride without a helmet. Increasing a given risk, the consequences of which could be a cost to society, is in itself the imposition of a negative externality. That's why the cops arrest speeders and drunk drivers, even if they haven't gotten into an accident.
Your rejection of the "cost to society" argument is, at its core, the "slippery slope" argument, which is rarely, if ever, valid. It's a variation on reductio ad absurdum, which is more of a rhetorical device than a tool for analysis. There is a LOT of behavior that is circumscribed or proscribed nowadays, simply because society is beginning to recognize the effects of widely diffused negative externalities--behavior that harms everyone, albeit just a little.
Let me start this and we can see how many ideas that we can got to save our planet,
1.Set your thermostat a few degrees lower in the winter and a few degrees higher in the summer to save on heating and cooling costs.
2.Install compact fluorescent led light bulbs (CFLs) when your older incandescent bulbs burn out.
3.Unplug appliances when you're not using them. Or, use a "smart" power strip that senses when appliances are off and cuts "phantom" or "vampire" energy use.
4.Wash clothes in cold water whenever possible. As much as 85 percent of the energy used to machine-wash clothes goes to heating the water.
5.Take shorter showers to reduce water use. This will lower your water and heating bills too.
Quote: reilly12Global warming is a big problem of hole the world !!
Which hole is that? There are many holes in the Earth, you know.
Life changes. Now you must replace your utility lights in your basement, garage, closets, and outside lights with CFL lights. For the half a dozen places in your house where a nice warm light is desirable, you have to shell out $30 or so for an LED light. Over a few years, you will get back even the most expensive lights in cost savings on your bill.
A handful of states have even managed to reduce their average residential usage since 1990, despite the trend towards larger homes. The noticeable factor about these states is there minimal or non-existent need for Air Conditioning.
Change in kWh/customer from 1990-2009
-9.6% ME
-9.4% WA
-7.5% ID
-7.3% AK
-6.9% OR
-1.9% VT
-0.9% NV
+0.8% HI
+1.6% WI
The other end of the spectrum follows. Although the primary factor in many cases must be increasing affluence.
20.6% WY
21.2% SD
21.5% KY
21.5% AR
22.6% ND
22.8% PA
24.3% NM
24.4% UT
26.1% MO
32.4% WV
NOTE: I am talking about usage, not cost.
USA total has seen residential usage increase by 47.7% from 1990-2009. There are 29% more customers, that use 14.5% more electricity on average.
Quote: reilly12Global warming is a big problem of hole the world !!
Yes, that GD sun keeps on fluctuating in temperature and causing crazies to think it is something mankind is doing. But now the majority seems to agree that the earth has fluctuated in temperature over 4.5MMM years and there is nothing that can be done about it.
Quote:Let me start this and we can see how many ideas that we can got to save our planet,
1.Set your thermostat a few degrees lower in the winter and a few degrees higher in the summer to save on heating and cooling costs.
But if it is warming, won't the warm weather be better in that I won't need to pay as much to heat in the winter and the longer growing season will lower my food costs? Historically warmer is better. Or do you prefer "The Little Ice Age" and "The Year Without a Summer" when people strarved?
Quote:2.Install compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) when your older incandescent bulbs burn out.
How is putting more dangerous mercury in my house vs a safer incandecent a good thing? Do you own stock in GE or something?
Quote:3.Unplug appliances when you're not using them. Or, use a "smart" power strip that senses when appliances are off and cuts "phantom" or "vampire" energy use.
I don't have any phantoms or vampires in my house, don't even believe in them, and hate the entire Haloween concept for that matter. So I will leave them plugged in so I don't fatigue the wire in the plug cord by doing this, causing a potential fire hazard.
Quote:4.Wash clothes in cold water whenever possible. As much as 85 percent of the energy used to machine-wash clothes goes to heating the water.
Maybe for dark colors but I like my whites white, not battleship-grey. Heat, detergent, and time are the three factors that clean clothes. Decrease one and you need to increase another.
5.Take shorter showers to reduce water use. This will lower your water and heating bills too.
Not sure how having stinky people around will "save the planet," but maybe it is so they can find each other at that "Occupy Wall Street" thing and don't confuse each other with clean, hardworking people? Now if you excuse me, I need to go turn up the TV so I don't miss the newscast during my nice, hot shower.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerThe whole "cost to society" argument is pretty dangerous, and probably shouldn't be pursued, because the same argument can be used as follows ...
* Since Society pays for emergency room visits for poor people due to heart attacks caused by high salt content foods, we should ban all high salt content foods.
* Since Society pays for emergency room visits for poor people, we should ban emergency room use for poor people.
* Since Society pays for emergency room visits for poor people due to car accident, poor people's use of cars should be prohibited.
* Since Society pays for emergency room visits for poor people due to injuries suffered in athletic competitions, we should ban all athletic competitions.
These are meant to be reductio ad absurdum, but the concept is valid. Society will always have a cost, and society will always have idiots, and sometimes, the cost to Society caused by idiots has to be picked up by Society. That's just life.
If you want to make helmet use mandatory, that's fine, just don't attribut it to some nebulous "cost to Society" BS.
I think any rational person understands that unilateral use of "cost to society" can justify all kinds of horrific behavior. Certainly the gassing of the blind, the mentally retarded, in the 1940's could easily be justified as a removing a "cost to society".
But surely the contract between government and civilians is not limitless. Although the road to Hatteras, NC built in the 1960's made life easier for the 3300 people who live on a sandbar, nowadays it is projected that maintaining a road to this tiny community will cost over $1/4 million per person for the next century. The problem is, of course, that the sandbar is drifting roughly 13 feet per year. Right now Hurricane Irene has cut the road in several places. While a road is infinitely more convenient than a ferry, does society (or the state of North Carolina) owe these people a road or a ferry?
Or the cost of building an airport on a rock in the middle of the Aleutian islands in Alaska for $70 million to benefit a few thousand people so they no longer have to rely on seaplanes.
The incandescent light bulb ban starts at 150 watt bulbs. So for you people who want to burn a 200 Watt bulb 24/7 for a year at a cost of over $200, the industry does not have to stop making them.
bulbs 40w and below forever. Phillips is already
making a regular bulb that is 35w and puts
out 60w of light.
Quote: EvenBobMy understanding is you'll still be able to buy
bulbs 40w and below forever. Phillips is already
making a regular bulb that is 35w and puts
out 60w of light.
Bulbs do not put out "watts" of light, they put out "lumens" of light. You could make the 40w bulb put out the same light as today's 100w bulb but the resulting 40w bulb will not last as long, similar to burning a candle at both ends. You can make the 100w bulb that puts out only as much light as the 40w bulb and the bulb will last a looooong time, this is what they did with traffic lights before they switched to LEDs.
Or we can start voting out politicians who listen to envrionmental whackjobs and pass this kind of restrictive nonsense and we can buy the bulbs we want.
Quote: reilly12Global warming is a big problem of hole the world !!
Although there's no spam link in this post, the 4 others made suggest this is a spam bot.
Quote: AZDuffmanBulbs do not put out "watts" of light, they put out "lumens" of light.
Yes, yes, I meant to say puts out as much light
as a 60w.
Regardless of the global warming vs political sham debate, I'd enjoy cutting down polution. I have a first hand account of industry ruining a place I love, and a childhood full of memories of the stink and sludge that took over swimming and fishing holes. But I am NOT a fan of the lightbulb b.s. or any other restrictions of this type. Those lights are nothing short of terrible, they grate at my brain and burn my eyes. I wouldn't mind having one as a porch or garage light, but to relax and read by one is madness.
Same with all the rest. Electric/hybrid? Bring it on. It's nice to have options, and a 40mpg diesel/hybrid econobox might fit my life one day. Bring em in, make em better, and if you can get the tech to make them as good as my current petrolmobile, then everyone wins. But don't dare make an 8mpg, 427cu/in tire shredder illegal. Otherwise...
Quote: AZDuffman... we can start voting out politicians who listen to envrionmental whackjobs and pass this kind of restrictive nonsense and we can buy the (stuff) we want.
Quote: EvenBobMy understanding is you'll still be able to buy bulbs 40w and below forever. Phillips is already making a regular bulb that is 35w and puts out 60w of light.
It must be below 40 watts or above 150 Watts to be exempt. It cannot be equal to 40 or 150. Roughly 50% of the light bulbs sold were 60 Watts, so the extreme cases are exempt.
A standard incandescent 60w bulb produces 840 lumens. Usually a 13 watt compact fluorescent bulb will produce 825 lumens. If Phillips is able to make an incandescent bulb with 35 watts that can produce 840 lumens of power, than that will partly meet the governments objectives. It would only be 42% electricity savings instead of 78%, but the light may be more pleasant.
Residential Electricity sales increase by 2.07% per year because of more customers and increased usage per customer. Residential sales accounts for roughly 1/3 of electricity usage in this country. So all the residential lights in the country are only be equal to about 6 months of growth. Pretty insignificant. I haven't read the law, but without something significant regarding improved efficiency in refrigeration, and commercial and industrial usage, they are more or less picking on the little guy. (There is some ammunition for you EvenBob).
Quote: EvenBobMy understanding is you'll still be able to buy
bulbs 40w and below forever. Phillips is already
making a regular bulb that is 35w and puts
out 60w of light.
Made especially for old-school guys like you. A boutique market.
Quote: EvenBobYes, yes, I meant to say puts out as much light
as a 60w.
Hope you didn't think I was picking on you, but on this board if I didn't point it out, someone would have.
bulb burning 24/7. In the 80's I would get a GE
15w bulb and note it was rated at 2000 hours.
I'd write down the date and and keep the receipt
and when it burned out before 2000 hours, and
it always did, I'd send the receipt to GE and they
would send me a coupon for a bulb. 15w bulbs
were expensive then. Now I use a 40w in that
spot. Off brand, 5 for a $1 at Menards. I put one
in on May 10th, 2010 and its still burning. Thats
over 12,000 hours on a 2000 hour bulb. I remember
20 years ago, there was a hallway bulb in a fire
station in Boston that had been burning continuously
since 1911. An Edison bulb, the clear old fashioned
kind. It was barely putting out any light, but it
was lit.
Quote: EvenBobI remember
20 years ago, there was a hallway bulb in a fire
station in Boston that had been burning continuously
since 1911. An Edison bulb, the clear old fashioned
kind. It was barely putting out any light, but it
was lit.
I think it is still going strong. The filiment looks 10xs heavier than todays bulbs.
Quote: AZDuffmanBulbs do not put out "watts" of light, they put out "lumens" of light. You could make the 40w bulb put out the same light as today's 100w bulb but the resulting 40w bulb will not last as long, similar to burning a candle at both ends. You can make the 100w bulb that puts out only as much light as the 40w bulb and the bulb will last a looooong time, this is what they did with traffic lights before they switched to LEDs.
Or we can start voting out politicians who listen to envrionmental whackjobs and pass this kind of restrictive nonsense and we can buy the bulbs we want.
You can get roughly double the light from a halogen incandescent compared to regular incandescent. Your lamp life will be the same. But you are right on regular bulbs. So called 'long life' bulbs are simply built for a higher voltage than they see. This greatly increases their life and cuts the light output and efficiency. The old incandescent street light bulbs were actually rated at 145 volts even though they ran on 120 volts. This gave them a 10k hour life or more. It also made them only 1/2 as efficient as a regular lamp.
I use incandescent bulbs that I buy for 20 cents each. I always write down the date a new one is screwed in, the one in there now has been there since May 2 of last year. 40 watts. 20 cents. Nice, mellow yellow light, easy on the eye.
And for some reason, I believe he actually does this. I need to start taking my meds again, I guess !
Quote: buzzpaffAnd for some reason, I believe he actually does this. !
Its the only way to test bulbs for longevity. Some
brands I won't use because they burn out too
quickly.
Quote: buzzpaffDamn, makes me wish i had been a patron of your bar. Bet there was not a Pilsner glass in the place !
Didn't have tap beer, too much of a pain. Had long neck
Bud and long neck Coors. Coors was only available west
of the Rockies in those days, BTW. We had Miller Lite in
cans but nobody drank it. 90% drank Bud, the Mexicans
all drank Coors. When I lived in Hawaii, all the native
Hawaiians drank Coors, I never saw them with any other
brand.
